WHAT'S THE BUZZ - Bond, Kramer, Family Guy & More

CRAIG, DANIEL CRAIG

There's been alot of talk about whether Daniel Craig is worthy to fill Bond's shoes - but my question is whether the character of Bond is worthy of yet another incarnation. Seriously, isn't it about time to retire this character - just how much longer are they going to drag this series out? I can't even remember the last Bond film I saw.

It's not surprising there's been so much chatter about this because finding just the right Bond is the key for giving the series more leg power. And it's definitely the key for me in terms of coming aboard the Bond bandwagon - which incidentally explains I haven't seen a Bond film since the late 80's, because they just never seem to get the casting right. Because, let's face it, Bond is not one of the more likeable action heroes around - he's sexist, he's a ruthless, cold blooded killer, he treats women like objects, he's full of himself, etc. If Bond were a woman, there's no way the character would be so beloved, especially if she behaved in the same way as her male counterpart. But I for one would love to see a female James Bond - a Jane Bond if you will. Now that would be a welcome direction to take this character.

What's equally annoying about the Bond debate is how everybody always talks about Sean Connery being the best Bond ever - whatever. My favourite Bond was Timothy Dalton - the one no one else seemed to like. But to me, Dalton had the right balance of edginess and suave. Connery was good and he had great screen charisma, but he was too heavy on macho and too short on likeability. Roger Moore was simply too boring. And except for his great performance in the underrated film from last year, The Matador, I have yet to see Pierce Brosnan create a likeable or interesting character. Daniel Craig, although he wouldn't be my first choice to play Bond, is a welcome change to Brosnan's reign of mediocrity. Having not seen the film, I would still rank Craig second or third on the all time best Bonds list. But off all the actors that were in the running, I would have chosen Clive Owen. Owen is a good actor, with lots of screen presence - one who can be cool and edgy, without being an asshole.

KRAMER'S MELTDOWN

Although I consider Seinfeld to be one of the ten greatest television shows of all time, truth be told, Kramer was not one of my favourite characters. To me, the real stars of Seinfeld were George and Elaine. In fact, George and his parents alone were so funny they could have had their own show. Richard's characterization of Kramer relied too heavily on physcial comedy for my taste. Don't get me wrong, Kramer is a funny character and he definitely had some stellar moments, but the true stars of Seinfeld, apart from the great writing, will always be Jason Alexander and Julia Louis-Dreyfus in my book.

Having said that, Michael Richards' meltdown was not completely surprising to me. Even though comedy is serious business, Richards always struck me as someone a little too tightly wound to be a comedian. I'm not sure why I had that impression - maybe it's because he was known to be the most solemn performer of the four; or maybe it's because of the rumours he gets quite irate when fans affectionately call him Kramer in public. Whatever the reason, I wasn't completely surprised. What did surprise me was the timing of his meltdown - right on the heels of Seinfeld's Season 7, DVD release. Was Richards subconsciously trying to sabotage the DVD release or was it a publicity stunt to draw more attention to the DVD release - the old adage there's no such thing as bad publicity coming into play here. But evern more surprisng than all the above, was his less than stellar satellite appearance on Letterman afterwards, which in my opinion made the matter worse. Someone should've given that idea some more thought. Not that Richards' apology didn't seem sincere, but that his stint on Letterman was the most awkward, uncomfortable, rambling, non-sensical and incoherent public apology I've heard in quite awhile. It was truly painful to watch. Why Richards chose this venue to do some spin doctoring instead of having his publicist issue a statement is beyond me.

In addition, I found Richards' claim that he's not a racist to be quite amusing. Much like Mel Gibson's claim that he's not anti-semitic, their attempts to deny their prejuduices just doesn't hold water . I hate to break it to Michael & Mel, but stress and alcohol don't create racism, they simply reveal it. Having said that, few of us could hold up to the scrutiny if our most secret thoughts were ever suddenly revealed to the world. Most of us would probably have alot of explaining and apologizing to do.

FAMILY GUY VS. SANDRA OH

There's been some discussion about whether Family Guy crossed the line by making ethnic jokes about Sandro Oh on last Sunday's episode. When I heard about this, I was stunned. Of all the things that Family Guy has done to elicit reaction, I can't believe that this is the one that made 'headlines.' First of all, the joke wasn't offensive because the intent was not to deride a culture but rather to elicit a laugh by highlighting the character's stupidity and ignorance - in the same way Archie Bunker's ignorant statements only served to elicit a laugh at the character's expense and not at the culture he was denegrading. Second of all, Family Guy has done things much worse than that - things that should've elicited some reaction, but did not. It's amazing to me how jokes making fun of child molestation and the Holocaust, jokes that denegrade sacred symbols and poke fun at physically challenged people, jokes that were really in bad taste and only served to reveal the show's ultimate driving philosophy: a laugh at any cost, don't seem to get any reaction. As I've said before, Family Guy is a brilliant show with the potential to surpass the comic genius of The Simpsons. Unfortunately, the producers' unwillingness to draw the line at appropriate points is something that continually undermines the show's comic genius. Part of what makes The Simpsons so great is the show's ability to push the boundaries while still respecting that great divide that separates brilliance from bad taste. Family Guy has crossed that line too many times for my liking, but the Sandra Oh segment wasn't one of those times.

PAMELA, PAMELA, PAMELA

It's only because I like her so much that I'm even bothering to comment about Pamela Anderson's divorce from Kid Rock. Anderson may be a smart and saavy business woman but she's completely clueless when it comes to men and relationships. So I've taken it upon myself to give her some much needed advice:

• Enough with the rockers! They aren't working out! Date an accountant or an insurance salesman or something. Generally speaking, rockers don't make great life partners. If you can't let go of your thing for musicians, then date a crooner or a classical musician - but NO MORE ROCKERS!
• Don't marry someone who've only known for 4 DAYS! And especially don't marry a rocker you've only known for 4 days.
• Don't marry someone repeatedly in different places over a short time span. It will only come back to haunt you.
• Keep your relationships, affairs, etc. out of the pubic eye. Don't comment on them - ever! Again, declaring your love publicly will only come back to haunt you.

TOM & KATE WED - A Bullet Point Commentary

• Who cares!
• Who the hell cares!
• Who the #@*! cares!

HALLOWEEN - Hollywood Style

Almost since the birth of cinema, Hollywood has continually tried to scare the #@&*! out of the movie going public. And why? Because people love being scared at the movies, and there’s lots of money to be made from that. But let’s face it – it’s very difficult to scare people these days. Moviegoers have become much more sophisticated. We are much more savvy and have become far too aware of all their tricks. And when it comes to genuine thrills, Hollywood has simply run out of treats. Almost everything has already been tried and done. So tinsel town has had to resort to cheap gimmicks to try and scare us – things like having a cat suddenly jump out into an open area or having a door suddenly slam shut during a moment of tense silence. These are tactics that scare people for a split second, but leave no lasting impact. Long gone are the movies that really scare you and stay with you for days or weeks afterwards.

But Hollywood has not given up. The major studios are always on the look out for the next Jaws, Psycho or Exorcist – movies that truly terrified people and brought them into the theatres in droves. And yet, what really scares us is a very personal thing. I know people who are really frightened by movies about serial killers. Personally, I'm more frightened by movies about supernatural phenomenon.

Now at this point I should make a distinction between movies that are scary and movies that are disturbing. Almost all disturbing films are scary to some degree, but not all scary movies are disturbing. A scary movie is more like a roller coaster ride – something that’s thrilling, chilling but ultimately inconsequential. Disturbing movies on the other hand are life altering, perspective changing and innocence tainting. Disturbing films give us a vision of darkness and touch us in a way that forever leaves its mark. Obviously these distinctions aren’t black and white, but still worth noting for the purposes of this article. For in the next following paragraphs, I will present my personal choices for the eight scariest movies of all time. Why eight? Why not eight? The focus of the list is primarily movies made for the sole purpose of scaring us silly; which is why some disturbing films that also truly frightened me are not on this list. Please also note: the movies on the list are ranked according to their fear factor – not according to their overall quality as a film.

08. The Others (2001)
Some may think this movie is too recent to already be on any kind of ‘best of all time’ list. However, The Others is a superbly orchestrated supernatural thriller with enough twists and turns to rival anything that has come out of Hollywood in the last twenty years. Incredibly, the filmmakers were still able to fool the audience – a feat not easily accomplished with today’s savvy movie going public. As well, Nicole Kidman gives a great performance and the director does a brilliant job of drawing us into the story, of creating some truly tense moments and of building the suspense right up until the shocking finale. The Others didn’t give me nightmares, but it was completely absorbing and unsettling.

07. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Anthony Hopkins gives one of the most chilling and unnerving screen performances of all time and he is really the main reason to see this film. I have to admit, I wasn’t that impressed with Silence of the Lambs the first time I saw it – although, even then, I still felt that Anthony Hopkins performance was brilliant. However, my initial sense was that the movie was much more of a gore fest and a glorification of violence than a real fright fest. Having recently seen it a second time, I was quite surprised to find the experience far more frightening than the first time – which again validates my theory that one should see a film at least twice before saying anything definitive about it. The first time I saw it, I was much more focused on the plot development. The second time around, I was able to focus more on the subtleties that complement the plot and make the film truly terrifying. I think this is a real credit to Jonathan Demme, who takes his time in letting the story unfold and allowing the fright factor to build naturally in the construction of the plot. Demme isn’t in a rush to scare us and he doesn’t use cheap gimmicks to accomplish this end; instead, he takes his time, bringing out the power of the story with amazing subtlety. I still think the film is somewhat a glorification of violence, but it’s still worth seeing – if for no other reason than to witness Hopkin’s history making characterization of Hannibal Lector.

06. Alien (1979)
Alien, Ridley Scott’s masterful science fiction horror film, has become a true modern day classic. Alien, in essence, is the resurrection, evolution and modernization of the sci-fi horror genre, which had been virtually dead since the sixties. It not only broke new ground, it raised the bar for sci-fi horror films and set a new standard for the genre. We had never seen aliens quite like this in the movies before and we had never seen the genre treated quite like this before – with such a strong sense of realism and authenticity given the story's supernatural context. The movie also broke new ground in terms of creating one of the very first female action heroes, which is just now becoming a staple in Hollywood. Apart from that, Alien has a great set-up. After all, what could be more terrifying than being adrift in the immense isolation of space – trapped aboard a starship with an unstoppable, super powerful, alien predator aboard? And to his credit, Scott takes full advantage of this premise, making the most of the dark, claustrophobic environment; pacing the story quite well, while resisting the temptation to substitute genuine suspense with cheap thrills. Alien does tend to be a little bit of a gore fest, but it still manages to succeed as a classic, supernatural thriller.

05. The Birds (1963)
I recently had the opportunity to see The Birds again with a huge audience in which people were laughing at moments that I’m sure Hitchcock didn’t intend to be funny. The reason for this is simple. People recognized all the clichés that they’ve seen in a million other movies like it. Unfortunately, what they fail to realize is that Hitchcock authored these clichés. It’s only because Hitchcock has been ripped off so much, that people recognize these clichés at all – things that were not clichés when Hitchcock first created them. In other words, they only became clichés after filmmakers started imitating Hitchcock. Hitchcock is one of the few directors in movie history whose films are a genre unto themselves - a remarkable feat. The Birds is an extremely effective supernatural thriller (with remarkable special effects given the time that it came out). There is no explanation given to the birds sudden, bizarre and aggressive behaviour – but no explanation is needed. Hitchcock had enough trust in the audience’s intelligence to know that we could accept the premise without any kind of contrived explanation. The threat is simply there; and the threat is handled brilliantly in classic Hitchcock style. This is one of those scary movies that left a lasting impact. Before seeing The Birds, I never gave a second thought to crows and seagulls. Now, even to this day, they make me nervous.

04. Aliens (1986)
James Cameron seems to have a knack for making sequels better than the original. He first accomplished this with Terminator II – a follow up to one of his own films. Now he does it again with Aliens – a follow up to a film he had nothing to do with. With Aliens, Cameron virtually does the impossible and makes the sequel even scarier than the original. For Alien may have frightened me, but Aliens made me a nervous wreck and gave me a permanent sleep disorder. A remarkable feat considering the fantastical context in which the story takes place. This time around, Sigourney Weaver received an Oscar nomination for her portrayal of Ripley – an honour well deserved, as she did a remarkable job finding the balance between the toughness and tenderness of her character. She is the emotional center of the film and a large part of its success. There are also some wonderful supporting performances from such actors as Bill Paxton, Michael Biehn, Lance Henriksen, Paul Reiser and Carrie Henn (who plays the young girl that Ripley takes on a parental role with). But James Cameron is the real star here. He does a masterful job of setting the story up, of developing the plot, of creating suspense, of building tension, and of scaring the @#*!& out of us. What’s equally amazing is how he manages to develop a heart-warming story in the midst of all this – a story that is almost as touching as the film is frightening.

03. Psycho (1960)
This is it -- the original 'slasher movie.' The 'slasher movie' to begin and end all slasher movies. And yet Psycho is so much more than a mere slasher movie as Hitchcock's masterpiece had a lasting impact on all our collective psyches. First, it changed how we perceive the lonely, socially maladjusted mamma’s boy who we never pay much attention to. Hitchcock made us start paying attention to them. Second, it changed the way we perceive the world around us. No longer was danger out there somewhere; danger was everywhere – in places you least expected. And even a simple hotel could turn out to be a haven for unspeakable terror. Consequently, no one was safe anymore; not even the star of the film; for before Psycho, killing off the lead half way through a film was unheard of. Third, it made us afraid to take showers. Volumes alone have been written about the visceral power and brilliance of the shower scene. And finally, it brought new meaning to the word twist ending. The finale was such a complete shock to everyone that they had to put out ads telling people not to give away the ending. What more could you ask for in a slasher/horror thriller? Psycho is not only Hitchcock at his best – Psycho is a milestone in cinema history.

02. Jaws (1975)
Spielberg has often been accused of ripping off Hitchcock, but I think Spielberg is more the evolution of Hitchcock. Spielberg took the best of Hitchcock and brought Hitchcock to the next level. Sure you see elements of Hitchcock in Jaws, but even Hitchcock never made anything this scary. Jaws is simply a masterpiece when it comes to the thriller/horror genre – a movie that terrified a continent so successfully that the beaches were practically empty during the summer of 1975. Part of what makes Jaws work so well is that we hardly see the shark for a significant portion of the film – we see hints of the shark and evidence of its presence, but we never really get a clear look at it until the final act. As well, Spielberg is very patient in developing the story – skillfully drawing us into the world of the film and the lives of its characters as the tension builds gradually. This makes everything that much more compelling as we are made to truly care about what happens to these characters and their world. Spielberg also uses music brilliantly here; making it almost another character in the film – one that the audience responds to immediately. There are some truly terrifying moments in Jaws – moments that are forever etched in our collective memories. In addition to scaring everybody half to death, Jaws made Hollywood history by breaking all kinds of box office records and forever changing Hollywood’s approach to movie making.

01. The Exorcist (1973)
Well this is it – the scariest movie of all time. A movie so scary, that it was only recently that I was able to muster the courage to watch it from beginning to end. Before that, I was not able to watch the complete film in its entirety. In fact, this is the one movie on the list that I don’t recommend people seeing, especially if you have a weak heart – it’s just too scary. Rumour has it that the director, William Friedkin, purposely made the set very tense by doing such things as making sudden, loud noises in order to keep the actors’ nerves rattled. Rumour also has it that some very strange things happened on the set, to the point that they actually had to call in a priest to bless it. Whatever the truth, there’s just no doubt that this is the scariest film of all time – one that had a lasting impact on many. Earlier in this article, I made a distinction between movies that are disturbing and movies that are frightening. Well, The Exorcist is a movie that is very disturbing precisely because it is so frightening. Knowing that it's based on a true story doesn't help either.

THE 58TH ANNUAL EMMY AWARDS - Whateverrr!

It's been a long time since I've watched the pre-eminent awards ceremony for the best in television. I don't usually make an effort to catch it, because if you think the Oscars never get it right, the Emmys are worse - much worse; so much so that they're a joke. There's just no denying this when, for example, you consider the fact that one of the most overrated shows in TV history, Frasier, won best comedy series 5 years in a row - a travesty of unfathomable proportions, especially since this occurred during the glorious peak run of far more brilliant shows like The Simpsons and Seinfeld.

But I digress. Through the magic of timeshifting, I did manage to catch the awards ceremony, but I did so not being nearly prepared as I am when I watch the Oscars. And although the experience was somewhat underwhelming, someone said something that I felt I had to comment on. One of last night's winners declared this to be a new golden age in television - one that should be enjoyed.

Although it's clear that television is enjoying a bit of an up swing, I'm not sure I would characterize this period as golden. To me, the true golden age of television was the 90's where you had 3 of the top 10 shows of all time at their best: The Simpsons, The X-Files and Seinfeld. It's true that television drama and reality television are enjoying a kind of appeal and prestige rarely seen in the medium's history, but it was during the 90's that the TV industry truly rivaled the movie industry in terms of quality entertainment. The X-Files alone, for a large part, were better written and directed than almost any drama coming out of the movie industry at the time. And no big screen comedy could come anywhere close to the genius of The Simpsons.

I admit that I'm a bit of a late comer to the reality TV craze, but television drama still bores me to tears. CSI, Boston Legal, Law & Order, Grey's Anatomy - I can't get into any of them. But honestly, are there no other professions in the world other than forensic scientists, police officers, lawyers and doctors. Haven't these professions been done to death! A new golden age in television - I don't think so.

The awards ceremony itself was mildly entertaining although it doesn't carry the same weight for me as the Oscars. Nevertheless, here are some of the high points:

• Conan O'Brien's opening sequence including monologue and dance number. Maybe a little too reminiscent of Billy Crystal's usual Oscar prologue antics, but still very funny and clever stuff.
• Megan Mullally's win for best supporting actress in a comedy series. I don't really watch Will and Grace regularly, but I've seen enough of it to know that her characterization of Karen is nothing less than brilliant.
• Cloris Leachman's win for guest actor in a comedy series, playing Malcolm's extremely dysfunctional grandmother in Malcolm in the Middle. Although she was awarded the statuette at an earlier ceremony, it was very satisfying to find out she was acknowledged for creating one of the most memorable guest characters in the history of television.
• The surprise appearance of Bob Newhart in a glass container as Conan explained that the comedy legend would run out of air and die if the broadcast exceeded its scheduled three hours. And then later, when Newhart resurfaced during the ceremony as a presenter, Conan continuing the gag by claiming that 52% of people who phoned in wanted to see Newhart live.
• Greg Garcia's acceptance speech. Garcia, who I've never heard of and who won in the writing category for penning the pilot of My Name is Earl, began his acceptance speech by listing people he did not want to thank - hilarious. By the way, the worse speech of the night was by Barry Manilow, who's terrible acting didn't persuade me that he was truly as surprised as he claimed about winning the Emmy, especially since, as he's saying so, he pulls out a list of thank yous from his jacket pocket. But the the worse part was him saying that the statuette would be his good luck charm in the operating room the following morning - very tacky.
• The tribute to Aaron Spelling - it wasn't nearly as cheesy and embarrassing as I expected.
• Julia Louis-Dreyfus' win for lead actress in a comedy series. True, I haven't seen a single episode of The New Adventures of Old Christine, but I think this makes up for all the times she didn't bring home an Emmy for her scene-stealing portrayal of Elaine on Seinfeld. Incidentally, one of Emmys' truly unforgivable sins is the fact that Jason Alexander never won an Emmy for his brilliant characterization of George on the groundbreaking series.
• Bryan Cranston's nomination for supporting actor in a comedy series for his characterization of Malcolm's father on Malcolm in the Middle. Although Jane Kazmarek, who plays the mother, has been nominated in the past, I'm not sure if Cranston ever was. Whatever the case may be, I was thrilled to see his amazing work on the grossly underrated series acknowledged - even if only with a nomination.
• Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's comedy stint before presenting the Emmy for outstanding reality series. Colbert criticized the audience for being godless sodomites and then anguished over the fact that he lost out to Barry Manilow. By the way, I'm extremely disappointed, but not surprised, that my current favourite reality show, Elimidate wasn't even nominated. True, it's completely trashy and low brow, but brilliantly so.
• And finally, although I don't know anything about fashion and although I care even less about the subject; and although I hate all the attention it gets, especially whenever there's discussion about award ceremonies, I can't help commenting on the fact that Candice Bergen was by far the worst dressed. It may be because it brought back traumatic flashbacks of Murphy Brown, a show I truly detested; but whatever the reason, it didn't look good. This wasn't necessarily one of the highs, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
  

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: Dead Man's Chest - A Bullet Point Commentary

It wasn't my intention to see Dead Man's Chest (or as I like to call it - The Never Ending Sequel) before seeing the original Pirates of the Caribbean, but due to circumstances outside my control, that's exactly what happened. But in all honesty, I had no desire to see either of them. Comedy action fantasy films about pirates aren't really my thing; and Johnny Depp doing a bizarre impersonation of Keith Richards didn't make the concept any more appealing to me. But having now seen Dead Man's Chest, I think I have a good handle on the original. However, I will still restrict my comments solely to the sequel.

• Despite it's record breaking opening weekend, Dead Man's Chest sucks! There's just no better way to put it.
• The concept is overrated as is the unnecessarily convoluted plot.
• The performances are mediocre, including Johnny Depp's overrated characterization of Jack Sparrow.
• The movie is way too long. It felt more like a mini-series than a feature.
• The action is okay at first, but then it just becomes tedious. I hate, hate, hate it when Hollywood unnecessarily drags out action sequences just to fill screen time. Especially when the sequences are repetitive, when there's nothing really at stake, and when they exist purely for their own sake. The sequences involving the giant squid-like creature are especially boring and underwhelming.
• For the most part, the humour is painfully unfunny and only serves to undermine the action and the plot. This may be an unfair comparison, but when I think of Raiders of the Lost Ark, one of the greatest action adventure fantasy films of all time, Spielberg brilliantly manages to infuse the action sequences and the plot with a sense of humour and whimsy while still making the story line absolutely compelling. Dead Man's Chest's attempt at humour gets stale awfully quick and seems more suited for prepubescents than adults.

The bottom line: There's really not much to say about this one. I can't understand what the hype is all about. Is it because Knightley, Bloom and Depp are teen idols? Who knows -- but let's face it, the summer movie landscape is pretty lame this year, so Dead Man's Chest had no real competition. In any case, my experience of the franchise has now been forever tainted. The original may be better, but having seen the sequel, it's not really worth it to me to find out.

On The Rickter-Scale, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest rates a 4 out of 10.

THE RICKTER-SCALE:
10 (A+) – extraordinary, a masterpiece
9.5/9.0 (A) – exceptional, a milestone
8.5/8.0 (A-) – excellent, a classic
7.5/7.0 (B+) – very good, a near classic
6.5/6.0 (B) – good
5.5/5.0 (B-) – fair
4.5/4.0 (C+) – poor
3.5/3.0 (C) – very poor, a near disaster
2.5/2.0 (C-) – terrible, a total disaster
1.5/1.0 (D+) – torture, a catastrophe
0.5/0.0 (F) – abysmal, the end of film as an artform

THE LORD OF THE RINGS MUSICAL LEAVES TORONTO - A Bullet Point Commentary

• Aaawwww!

IS SUPERMAN'S RETURN A WELCOME ONE?

It’s hard not to make comparisons between Superman Returns and the 1978 classic Superman: The Movie, which in my opinion remains the best comic book film adaptation of all time. In fact, director Richard Donner’s version of the Superman story is one my all time favourite movies, which is strange because Superman was not one of my favourite superhero characters – mainly because he was too perfect and too powerful to be relatable. I was much more into Spider-Man, whose limitations, flaws and struggles made comic book escapism very compelling. Superman, despite his obvious messianic links, is not really a very interesting character. And yet, the genius of the 1978 interpretation of the Superman story is that it managed to make a great film out of a mediocre albeit iconic comic book character.

Superman Returns is for the most part a noble and successful attempt to resurrect the Man of Steel and adapt him to a post 9/11 America – a disillusioned America with little to hope for, little to believe in and in desperate need of a saviour. But is a post 9/11 America really ready to embrace a savior?

Superman is very different than a lot of the other popular superheroes in that his power is almost limitless. So, although 9/11 could have easily happened with say Spider-Man or Batman, it could never have happened with Superman. He’s the only superhero with enough power to have prevented that catastrophic event. And yet 9/11 did happen – so the unspoken question the film wrestles with is whether Superman’s return is too late. In other words, has 9/11 left us too jaded to believe in a savior or did 9/11 make us even more aware of our need for a savior? Superman Returns may tackle the question, but it doesn’t really answer it satisfactorily, as a messianic figure like the Son of Krypton doesn’t seem to fit that easily into a post 9/11 world as he did into the pre 9/11 world of the 70’s & 80’s.

This may seem like making way too much out of an escapist summer film but, as I’ve stated before, the key to comic book adaptations is adapting the superhero character to our world rather than bringing the audience into the world of the superhero character. Spider-Man and Batman could fit easily into our post 9/11 psyche because like most of us, they would more or less have been powerless spectators of the event. But a messianic figure like Superman doesn’t fit quite as easily because he could have prevented such a tragedy. As we venture into the third millennium and mankind seems even more bent on self destruction, our world may need a messianic figure like the Man of Steel, but in a way, his presence in our reality doesn’t really make sense. After all, how could our world continue to be the way it is when inhabited by someone who has the power to single handedly prevent wars, genocide, hunger and even natural disasters?

The brilliance of Donner’s version of Superman is how well it adapted such a wholesome, fantastical character, to a modern, jaded sensibility. With the 2006 version, a messianic figure like Superman may seem like an easier sell to a post 9/11 reality, but it is really the opposite. In other words, director Bryan Singer has a more difficult challenge in adapting the Superman character to our present time because although a post 9/11 mentality desperately wants a savior; it is too disillusioned to believe in one - i.e. a post 9/11 mentality is willing to embrace a hero but not necessarily a savior.

But enough philosophizing – how does Superman Returns compare to Superman: The Movie?

Christopher Reeves characterization of the Man of Steel was unique and the ideal adaptation of the superhero to a contemporary mindset. In comparison, Brandon Routh’s characterization of Superman is less original and more of an homage to Reeves’ characterization. Nevertheless, Routh does a fairly good job considering he has such big shoes to fill and considering how difficult it is to play such an iconic figure. Routh doesn’t have the same presence and charisma as Reeves, but given more time, Routh could grow into the role, make it his own, and do great things with it. In any case, he’s off to good start and he certainly reflects Superman's sense of melancholy well. If only he didn't look like he was straight out of high school.

Kate Bosworth’s Lois Lane is on par with Margot Kidder’s, but unfortunately Bosworth’s chemistry with Routh is less dynamic than Reeve’s chemistry with Kidder. Bosworth seems to have more chemistry with her terrestrial beau, played well by James Marsden.

I never thought anyone could rival Gene Hackman’s characterization of Lex Luther, but Kevin Spacey comes close. He was a superb choice to play the super villain and his depiction of the character is the strongest performance in the film. Almost immediately, Spacey makes the character his own, accentuating the drama with his acting prowess and electrifying screen presence. His performance may be less understated than Hackman’s, but it is no less compelling.

The special effects in Superman Returns are extremely well executed but they have less emotional impact than those of the 1978 version. In Superman: The Movie the effects weren’t only impressive for their time, they were also infused with a sense of wonder – something that is lacking in the 2006 version. The ad copy for the 1978 version was: “You’ll believe a man can fly.” And it’s true, we did believe a man could fly (or at the least we believed in Hollywood's ability to convince us of that). But not only did Donner’s Superman make us believe a man can fly, it made us experience the sense of awe we would feel at witnessing such a miraculous sight.

What’s decidedly different about this Superman is its darker tone. There’s something more somber about this version of Superman as Singer revels in the same territory Superman II began to explore – how Superman’s higher calling isolates him from the rest of humanity reinforcing his feelings of alienation. In the original version, Superman’s arrival injected a sense of hope and optimism into our cynical, present day frame of mind. Superman’s second coming doesn’t feel quite as hopeful. But the darker tone doesn’t bother me as much as the confusion of tones. Singer’s Superman doesn’t quite know what it wants to be – it wants to recapture the same escapist optimism brilliantly reflected in Donner’s pre 9/11 version while adapting the character to the darker atmosphere of our post 9/11 reality. The two tones don’t quite mesh well together, giving the film a sense of split personality. It doesn’t help that Singer constantly makes little references or tributes to the Donner version. It might have been better if Singer simply reinterpreted the Superman story altogether and make it his own rather than doing an updated version of the Donner interpretation. But, despite all this, Superman’s Return is indeed a welcome one as Singer charts a new direction for the Son of Krypton .

On The Rickter-Scale Superman Returns rates a 6 out of 10 (B); Superman: The Movie rates a 10 of 10 (A+).

THE RICKTER-SCALE:
10 (A+) – extraordinary, a masterpiece
9.5/9.0 (A) – exceptional, a milestone
8.5/8.0 (A-) – excellent, a classic
7.5/7.0 (B+) – very good, a near classic
6.5/6.0 (B) – good
5.5/5.0 (B-) – fair
4.5/4.0 (C+) – poor
3.5/3.0 (C) – very poor, a near disaster
2.5/2.0 (C-) – terrible, a total disaster
1.5/1.0 (D+) – torture, a catastrophe
0.5/0.0 (F) – abysmal, the end of film as an artform